Posted on 11/02/2024 6:18:24 AM PDT by marktwain
A linchpin of the argument of those who favor a disarmed population is the assumption that “More Guns = More Crime.” It was succinctly stated as an assumption in a recent paper. Psychopathy, Gun Carrying, and Firearm Violence:
Carrying guns increases the risk of injury and death…
This is a hotly disputed assumption. Several papers dispute the premise. If carrying guns does not increase the risk of injury and death, the pragmatic argument for strict restrictions on gun ownership and use collapses. There is some evidence that if guns are restricted in a draconian manner, homicides with guns may be reduced. However, the total number of homicides is not reduced by gun control.
Long-term data to test the premise is available. There is FBI data on homicide rates in the United States going back to 1910. Homicides are the most reliable crime figure because there is a body and an investigation. There is fairly good data on the number of firearms that are privately owned in the United States. If more guns equals more crime, an increase in per capita firearms ownership should be correlated with the homicide rate.
The number of cartridge firearms in the USA has not been calculated for dates before 1945. This was before records were commonly available. Serial numbers on firearms were generally not required before 1968. Firearms first sold to the military, then later sold as surplus, are not included in these numbers, nor are firearms made for personal use. Semi-automatic, bolt action, and single-shot rifles, revolvers, and semi-automatic pistols sold as military surplus could number
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
The per capita number of firearms goes up and up. The homicide rate goes up and down, up and down.
As many as 19 million firearms sold to the military (single shot, bolt action, semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and revolvers) could have been sold as surplus in the USA, and are not accounted for in the graph.
Correlation or law of obviosity? i.e., can’t have a firearm injury or death if there is no firearm.
Sort of like saying having a vehicle increases your odds of having a traffic accident.
A non-statistic.
How so? We are talking about total homicides, not just homicides committed with firearms.
You may have read a little too fast. The article says there is no correlation.
The positive correlation is a racial/demographic one.
I bet there is a correlation Between Firearms per Capita and robbery rates. More guns, less robbery.
Some populations are more prone to violence than others.
Bookmark.
But I’ll bet there is a correlation between more guns and les crimes, and between demographics and crime/gun use in crimes- but msm would never print those facts.
Based on the years and what was happening at the time it seems that the federal government causes the homicide rate to go up.
Ah, ok, thought they were referring to firearm only.
The #1 leading cause of violent crime is violent criminals.
you are not allowed to point that out
“IF guns are outlawed for American citizens only two types of criminals will have guns...those who don’t respect the badge and those who wear one” L.Star
I could always withdraw the comment, I suppose. Don’t hold your breath.
I see that quite a bit. It is a way of lying with statistics.
What is the point of reducing homicides with firearms, if overall homicides stay the same or increase?
“What is the point of reducing homicides with firearms, if overall homicides stay the same or increase?”
1. Our ruling class thinks citizens with guns are icky?
2. It’s hard to have a credible revolt with clubs and knives?
That’s an excellent chart that would be even more illuminating were we to add a line showing Democratic governance: it’d track the murder rate.
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.